As I sit here, sipping my coffee and reflecting on my recent experiences with the review process, I can’t help but feel a sense of frustration. It’s not just about the outcome; it’s about the recurring patterns I’ve noticed in the weaknesses reviewers raise. Two particular issues stand out, and I’m not alone in feeling this way.
**The “Novelty” Problem**
The first issue is the “no novelty” criticism. I’ve seen it time and time again: a paper introduces a new idea that beats the state of the art, but because it reuses components from other fields, reviewers dismiss it as lacking novelty. It’s as if they’re saying, “Well, you didn’t reinvent the wheel from scratch, so your idea isn’t original enough.” But isn’t the goal of research to build upon existing knowledge and push the boundaries of what’s possible?
I’m not claiming that my paper is perfect – far from it. But when reviewers focus on the fact that I’ve reused existing components rather than the actual innovation and results, it feels like they’re missing the point.
**The Misunderstanding Epidemic**
The second issue is even more puzzling: reviewers asking questions that are already clearly answered in the paper. It’s as if they didn’t read the paper carefully, or at all. I’ve seen questions that are directly addressed in the introduction or methodology sections, and yet reviewers still ask them. It’s frustrating, to say the least.
I’m not asking for a free pass or special treatment. I just want reviewers to take the time to understand the content and provide constructive feedback. Is that too much to ask?
**What’s the Solution?**
So, what can we do to change this pattern? As researchers, we need to take responsibility for clearly communicating our ideas and results. But reviewers also need to take their job seriously and provide thoughtful, well-informed feedback.
It’s time for us to rethink the review process and focus on what really matters: the quality of the research and its potential impact. Let’s move beyond superficial criticisms and focus on the substance of the work.